Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,181

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:13:45 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:20:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
>>>What is the "it" here?
>>>Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
>>>The rankling?
>>
>>That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
>>explanation of what gay marriage is.
>
>Are you sure?
>Since the definition of marriage is so closely tied to religion, those
>who adhere to the religious beliefs are rankled by the idea of gay
>marriage because 'it's against God's law'.
>That's not a definition of Gay marriage.

Sorry, I went back and re-read what the original post was. I can
understand the confusion that my post generated since I was confused
by it! This is what it should have read:

>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>governments.

That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
explanation of what marriage is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,182

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:41:30 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:35:42 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>> >Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
>> >purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for the
>> >purpose of raising children.
>>
>> So what if one of members of the couple is sterile? Should they be
>> prevented from marrying?
>
>That situation doesn't change the argument. The institution of marriage
>serves society in that it produces productive members of society. It's a
>productive enterprise. Childless marriage doesn't change that perspective
>at all. They represent exceptions to the point of marriage, but don't
>detract from it.

So view gay marriage as a marriage with one sterile member. How can
one "detract" from marriage these days? With a 50% divorce rate it
seems that hetero couples have done a pretty bang up job detracting
from it on their own. Perhaps gay couples could show us how to live
together happily for an extended period.

>Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
>produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and family
>to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
>doesn't require marriage.

It's the nature of a capitalist society that you're so proud of.

>To me, it seems part of a gay agenda to normalize homosexuality in our
>society.

What's wrong with normalizing homosexuality? Is it better that we
beat them when we find them? Have a good old round of gay bashing?

>By redefining marriage, it's original purpose gets changed.

Allying noble houses?

>Where
>government has historically been generous in it's efforts to protect and
>nurture marriage and family, that will inevitably change as marriage becomes
>less about children and more about civil rights. A big mistake in my view.

As long as the two people involved care about each other and are
willing to tie their fortunes together that should be enough.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,183

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:32:10 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> Well, it's either primarily for the children or its not. How does a
>> childless couple add to society?
>>
>
>It's a general, macro principle, so one doesn't choke on the exceptions.
>But since you asked, childless couples don't add to society in that manner.
>When they die, that's it. That's not to say they don't contribute to
>society, of course they can and do. But that's not the issue here.

A childless couple will contribute to society exactly the same way
that a gay couple will. I've known many childless couples that I use
as an example of how to live my life since they were some of the most
loving couples that I know. They have contributed significantly to
the families and friends that they have associated with. I know
several gay couples who fall into this same category.

>> What's wrong with normalizing gays in society? As long as they care
>> for each other, how does that devalue the family unit? I think that
>> an abusive hetero person does a hell of a lot more to devalue marriage
>> than a gay couple does.
>
>Well, I think you're right in the sense that gays shouldn't have to walk
>down the street in fear of being attacked by gay bashers or have to go into
>a gay section in a restaurant and such. But I think it's a mistake to
>equate the rights and responsibilities of marriage to civil rights, which is
>what this effort is all about. It would change what marriage is and means
>in general in our society. From an insitution to protect and nurture our
>future generations to a benefits bonanza. Heck, the benefits of marriage
>aren't even "rights" for straights. It's a choice we make as a society for
>the benefit of society to treat marriage as we do. I don't suppose there's
>anything in the constitution that says people have rights to the benefits of
>marriage.

Marriage isn't a benefits bonanza, that's what divorce is for! Given
the casual nature people are approaching marriage with these days it
doesn't appear to have a lot of value, does it?

What it boils down to is this: If someone wants to take marriage
seriously, they will. If they don't, they won't. Allowing gays the
right to be legally married doesn't detract at all from the ability of
those who wish to take marriage seriously to do so.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

J

John Kimball

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,184

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:16:29 GMT "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in Message id:
<[email protected]>:

>Does it hurt?

Only when he whines.

--
"The only real improvement you could make at Walmart would be to
saturate every single store with VX at the height of the Christmas
season. I ****ing hate Christmas shopping. I wish the Blessed Virgin
Mary had learned to use a coathanger properly."
-EMT420

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,185

In article <[email protected]>,
"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>
>> >It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
>> >wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?
>>
>> Do you have any idea how many scientists agree with me on GW? About the
same
>> percentage that'd you'd find agreeing that evolution is real, for example.
>
>I don't know. Is there a poll available?

Yes. It's called the scientific literature.


>And when you say they agree with you -
>do you mean completely agree with you, or agree with certain points. For
>instance, they may agree that the concept of global warming due to CO2 is
valid
>but they may disagree on the magnitude, effects, or the suggested remedies.

OK, there is discussion about that, granted, but not about the 2 main points:

1. Warming is occurring.
2. Human activities are causing it.


>I
>think you overstate the level of agreement in an attempt to give more weight
to
>your particular beliefs. But that is just my personal opinion (not backed by
any
>other group).
>
>Ed
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,186

In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:53:28 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating
>health
>> >>>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
>expense.
>> >>>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a
>year
>> >>>for treatment.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply
>does
>> >>not happen.
>> >>
>> >>Read, for example,
>> >>http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/canada-health.html
>> >
>> >Um, Lloyd...
>> >Remember how you complain when we quote conservative sources?
>> >
>>
>> Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative.
>Now I
>> know to you Taliban anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun is a liberal if
>not
>> a socialist, but the rest of us aren't stupid like that.
>
>
>They don't speak for any consumers I know. Consumer Reports is a joke, used
>by those people who lack the intelligence to invistigate an issue and learn
>the truth.
>
>
Yeah, what else to expect of the mind-set that thinks Fox News is "fair and
balanced"?

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,187

In article <[email protected]>,
"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote first this:
>>
>> > I know that in NC, a law was passed specifically validating interracial
>> > marriages in order correct the harm done my an old law that declared
>> > such marriages invalid. If a similar law was passed validating same sex
>> > unions and recognizing then as a marriage, then I guess I'd be satisfied
>> > if not delighted.
>>
>> Then this:
>>
>> > I am opposed to trying to implement this through the judiciary by
>> > redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" as it has been
>> > understood for many years.
>>
>> These two statements seem contradictory.
>
>I'll try to clarify -
>
>I do not have a problem with the idea that same sex couples should be granted
>the same rights and responsibilities as people in a traditional man/woman
>marriages. To implement this, my preference is that laws be enacted to grant
>same sex unions rights equivalent to a traditional marriage where
appropriate.
>I'd prefer this be done without trying to redefine the legal meaning of the
>word marriage. I am especially opposed to a judge deciding that the word
>marriage means something different than the traditional legal definition. If
a
>law was passed that explicitly changed the definition, then I'd have to live
>with it (I'd be satisfied but not delighted).
>
>Ed
>
>
How about this? Marriage is a religious ceremony, performed by a church; the
government doesn't use the term "marriage" at all but "civil unions" for all
recognizied unions of 2 adults and grants the same benefits to all of them.

 

J

Jeepers

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,188

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (z) wrote:

>
> But 'supplementing' means replacing fossil fuels; just not replacing
> 100% of fossil fuels. If we 'supplement' fossil fuels with wind power,
> hydropower, solar power, cogeneration, etc. wherever such technologies
> are appropriate, we will replace a large fraction of our fossil fuel
> use.

Yet another crossposting doofus.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,189

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"vlj" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> sez:
>> <snip>
>> >It is not a marriage. <snip>
>>
>> Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
>> co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
>> church was no longer one in the same as the government.
>>
>> Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
>> and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter
>and
>> then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
>> medieval ...
>>
>
>Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
>purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for the
>purpose of raising children.
>

As I asked, you'd ban marriage then between people who can't or don't want to
have children?

Further, gays can adopt children.

>
>> VLJ
>> --
>>
>>
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,190

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>> >
>> > So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
>to
>> > opposite-sex couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
>> > come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite-sex
>couples."
>> >
>> > DS
>>
>> Exactly. Or maybe the more cogent response would be "Because a same-sex
>> relationship is, by definiton, not marriage since marriage is defined as
>> a certain relationship between opposite-sex couples".
>>
>> In the same way that, if someone were to ask "Why isn't cutting down a
>> tree not murder", you would answer "Because cutting down a tree is not
>> murder" (to use your straw-man circular argument), or perhaps "Because
>> the word 'murder' is defined as the killing of a human being; trees are
>> not human beings; therefore cutting down a tree is not murder", and any
>> reasonable person would get it because they know that the word "murder"
>> has a meaning in the English language, and so does "marriage".
>>
>
>Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
>serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
>a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
>society.


So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to have
children? Or simply don't want children?

It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
>couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
>no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
>for childless couples.

Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should reduce
disease transmission, etc.

>
>I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
>can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
>gays in society in every way,

And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being equal.


>that being the end, not that there's an end or
>purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
>marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what you
>marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to society.
>This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
>
>
>> Bill Putney
>> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> address with "x")
>>
>>
>> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,191

In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Jeepers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > For a local example just look at the VA hospitals.
>>
>> Your Point?
>
>Government control of healthcare results in poorer healthcare than private
>control, but then you knew that already.
>

Are you claiming veterans get poorer healthcare? LOL!


>>
>>
>> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,192

In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news[email protected]...
>> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >
>> > > Canada's healthcare system sucks.
>> >
>> > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American
>living
>> > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
>> > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
>> > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the
>Canadian
>> > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs
>of
>> > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>> >
>> > DS
>> >
>>
>> That's great. My experience in a French system was that it did fine for
>> everyday stuff: bandages, pain killers, antibiotics. Even then it could
>be
>> a littel scary depending on the doctor you see. I was in an accident and
>> hurt my hand and wrist. No big deal, but I was rushed to the hospital in
>a
>> scary ambulance ride (for sprain wrist!) and then when I got there, they
>> took my vitals and then took care of my hand. All went well enough until
>> the doctor saw my pulse rate. She thought is was too slow, dangerously
>so,
>> and so perscribed some pills (in a plastic bag) to speed my heart up.
>When
>> I got home I promply threw them away. I think my heart rate was in the
>> 50's, which is not too slow. I felt great. No different than I ever did.
>>
>> A friend of mine had a more serious condition and even though he had the
>> money to see a private doctor, went to the clinic. He went home in a box
>> because they didn't misdiagnosed his condition.
>>
>> The problem was, in my view, that the best doctors wouldn't come near the
>> socialized system, which paid poorly and rationed care. You cannot avoid
>> the trade-offs of a socialized system and a private competitive system. A
>> private system will leave some behind. A socialized system will give
>> everyone less quality and quantity overall. It's true with any "product".
>
>For a local example just look at the VA hospitals.
>
>
Ask any veteran if he or she would give that up. Please. Then duck.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,193

In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:49:02 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news[email protected]...
>>
>> >> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and
>lodged
>> >> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful,
>but
>> >> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>> >> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough
>manner.
>> >
>> >You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time, otherwise
>> >you would have been placed on a waiting list.
>>
>> Have you ever been to Canada?
>
>Yes I have. I also have friends in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan and
>Germany, and I have discussed their "free" healthcare with them many times.
>
>
>
>
Gee, anecdotal evidence is so, well, silly.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,194

In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.
>>
>>
>> It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
>> wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?
>
>I can answer that right now. I don't. It even says "Scientist" in my job
>title. Woohoo for me.
>

Yeah, and University of Georgia's Home Ec dept is now "Domestic Science."

>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,195

In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Dan Gates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> The Ancient One wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Mine is 162, what's your's Lloyd?
>> > It's simple really. The Canadian Government allows X amount of money for
>> > healthcare in a given year. When actual costs exceed that amount, the
>> > patients must wait until more money is found. True costs are much higher
>> > because people feel if they are paying for "free" healthcare then they
>are
>> > going to use it.
>> > For example, in America a guy wakes up with a headache, he takes two
>asperin
>> > and goes about his business. In Canada the same guy would think, hey, I
>> > could take two asperin, but I'm paying half my paycheck every week to
>the
>> > Government for "free" healthcare, I'm going to get my moneys worth. So
>he
>> > heads to the emergengy room for a full examination, at the end of which
>the
>> > Doctor prescribes two asperin. THAT is why your health care plan falls
>short
>> > in every single country it is used in, far to many people visiting the
>> > Emergency room for minor ailments they could treat themselves, simply
>> > because it's "free". Once the budget is spent though, you take a number
>and
>> > wait for new budget appropriations, or you come to America where
>healthcare
>> > comes before budget considerations. You bash our healthcare system, but
>> > people come here from virtually every nation on Earth for treatment,
>because
>> > we have the best hospitals, the best Technology, the best Treatment,
>Period.
>> > Your plan would destroy all that, and not only hurt Americans, but every
>> > criticaly ill patient on Earth who currently benifits from it.
>> > I know this is to complex for your limited intellect to comprehend
>though,
>> > so lets just say that you are wrong again, as you always are.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yes, that is just the way we do it!!!!
>>
>> Only 50% of the work force shows up for work on any given day because
>> the rest are at the hospital having some ailment or other treated!!!
>>
>> Get a life! The same low-lifes that crowd your "County" ERs for free
>> medicare are crowding our ER for their freebies.
>>
>> Most people using hospital services are their because they need to be!
>>
>> Lets compare, shall we?
>> Can. US
>> Life expectancy at birth? 82.7 66.9
>> Inpatient Care Beds/1,000 pop 20 17
>> Acute Care Beds/1,000 pop 35 29
>>
>> I could go on, but I won't.
>>
>> The US has more practising specialists and physicians than we have here,
>> just nobody can get to them because they are all golfing (|>)) ours just
>> have to work a full day (and then some).
>>
>> I have been in this system for a long time, it works. It doesn't work
>> perfectly for everybody, but it works. I'd rather get really sick here,
>> than really sick there.
>>
>> Dan, from Canada
>
>And yet the exodus from Canada to the US for treatment continues unabaited.

Urban legend (or coming from you, outright lie).


>To be so bad here it is amazing that so many come here from so many
>countries, giving up free care for prompt, high quality care here. You get
>reallly sick there, you get a tumor that requires immediate surgery, but the
>system is over budget and you're put on a six to twelve month waiting list,
>and then we'll see how fast you come running to America for immediate
>treatment.
>
>>
>>
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,196

In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge
tax
>>>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>>>
>>>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>>>
>>>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>>>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>>>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>>>
>>>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>>>loving the idea.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits,
no
>> insurance benefits, etc.
>
>Sure there would be. That's the whole point of creating the "new class
>of civil union." "Duh" is the only appropriate response.
>
>
>
>
And where has it been done? VT. And no other state recognizes civil unions
from VT.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,197

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have,
>what
>> >> >genders
>> >> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
>> >rights
>> >> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to
>govern
>> >> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities,
>through
>> >> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and
>marriage.
>> >> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
>> >communities
>> >> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and
>religion.
>> >>
>> >> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
>> >> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
>> >any
>> >> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do
>with
>> >> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
>> >amendment is
>> >> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
>> >states?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds.
>>
>> Interpretting the US constitution is the business of the feds, and it's
>the US
>> constitution that reserves certain unenumerated rights to the people. Who
>> else but the courts can interpret that and say what those rights are?
>>
>>
>> > There's multiple
>> >jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction
>arguments
>> >among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them
>individually.
>>
>> None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
>>
>
>You're hopeless Lloyd. Rights reserved to the states and to the people can
>be decided upon by the states and the people. No interpretation of the US
>constitution is required for those to be decided upon.

Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since it's
in the US constitution, the federal courts must.

>
>> >
>> >The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
>> merit.
>>
>> Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.
>
>There you go again. You just can't accept pro/con argument based on
>principle.
>

I didn't realize there were pro arguments for discrimination and bigotry.

>>
>> >Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to
>be
>> >sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to society
>is
>> >huge.
>>
>> Are you saying you cannot commit adultery except by sodomy? And even if
>so,
>> why was sodomy between unmarried people illegal? In fact, most of the
>sodomy
>> laws were only enforced for gays (thus unmarried people).
>>
>
>No, sodomy was not part of my comment above. It was all about adultery.

Why, in a discussion about gays? They can't marry, so they can't commit
adultery.

>
>I don't know. I imagine local governments were anxious that their cities
>and towns not become a gathering place for gays.

And if they decided this about, say, Jews?

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,198

In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form
of
>> subsidy to Boeing?
>>
>
>Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
>free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
>companies, and I have no problem with that.
>
It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,199

In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
>>>>friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
>>>>individuals.
>>>>Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
>>>>kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
>>>>not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>>>>prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.
>>
>>
>>>As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
>>>patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
>>>their misery...
>>
>>
>> Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
>> lots of money, then get back to us.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
>any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
>subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
>comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
>someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
>doctor here.
>
>
>

And the poor can crawl off and die, is that it?

>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,200

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
outdoing
>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>
>Sure.
>Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>their airlines to buy Airbus.

Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.

>That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.

They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was required
to.

>Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>merit.
>
Yeah, sure. That's funny.